This is a
continuation of my compiled writings against Christianity. If you wish to
return to the Introduction, Complete table of contents or somewhere else,
surely there’s a link for them somewhere on this page. If
you’re here by accident and don’t wish to stay – then I
didn’t want you here anyway and you now have a new computer virus….
The Case Against The Case
for Faith
The
premise of the book “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel seems
to be an exploration of Biblical Christianity through its better-known
proponents by a curious and impartial skeptic. Of course, that is not the
case. There is an intentional and cleverly fashioned flow in the book
through a sequence of interviews by a (supposedly skeptical) journalist in
a deliberate progression. These interviews are used to persuade under the
illusion of investigation as the author posed questions in a manner that
could be dismantled by a clever apologist. Any of Strobel’s questions
of the apologists’ theories are short and feeble. Instead, Strobel,
the interviewer and author, asks for reiteration and clarification of the
point in order to bang it home. Also, each question addressed by the
apologist neglects the influence of other factors, as will be written upon.
One of the main points is that god leaves just
enough evidence for people to believe but not so much as to convince. Yet
the book also writes “‘Unlike reason, which bows faithfully to
evidence, faith is prejudice’”. So even if there is contrary
evidence, faith will conjure up its own evidence or debate around it. Faith
creates evidence through personal desires, experience and attribution.
Though if god went through all of this trouble to create the world,
sacrifice his son and so on, for a few followers, why not convince? And
what else could an apologist say? Rather than tackling the issues as a
whole and debating with non-Christians, the book is written by Christians,
and for Christians, and it takes a narrow look at the topic. It delivers a
reason or hypothesis for each topic, which is interesting, but there is no
deliberation or debate. Therefore it lacks explanation, as there are
questions of the illogic behind the hypothesis.
Chapter 1: Pain and Suffering
Let’s look at the first topic of pain and
suffering. Strobel is “interviewing” Kreeft about pain and
suffering. Kreeft offers up the analogy of the bear, the hunter and trap
(pg. 43). Here a hunter happens upon a bear that is caught in a trap. The
hunter, empathetic and kind, moves in to try and aid the animal. Trying to
tranquilize the bear and help, Kreeft tells us that the bear wrongly sees
the hunter as a punisher and threat due to its inferior reasoning ability.
The compassion of the hunter is seen nonetheless as it helps the bear out. Kreeft
parallels this with humans and our lack of understanding of pain and
suffering. However, Kreeft leaves out the most vital portion of the story,
the beginning. In the beginning of the story, the hunter places bears in an
environment full of traps. As a bear gets caught in a trap, then the hunter
may or may not attempt to aid the bear. You see, the hunter “has
mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy and condemns whom he chooses to
condemn” (referencing Romans 9:15-16). The hunter does help some of the bears;
those that ask for help and some that do not. But is the hunter’s
compassion and mercy truly shown in helping the bears out of the traps, or
in not placing the traps amongst the bears in the first place? As Kreeft is
quoted by Strobel “as the bear could have trusted the hunter, so we
can trust god”.
Kreeft seems to be making a fairly legitimate
argument but stumbles upon saying that people have a notion of a
“supreme good” and “what ought to be” and that this
is an inherent belief in god, or evidence of god. Just as our sight of
black as black and white as white is evidence of god! Our judgment of pain
as a bad thing is reactive and ancient. It is a response to uncomfortable
stimuli. Our moral judgment of right and wrong has evolved over the
centuries and continues to evolve. It changes and adapts to society and
popular culture. Does this mean that god changes with society and cultures?
Our image of god and religion certainly does, though the bible says that
god is unchanging. SIN requires a god but not right and wrong. Right and
wrong are dynamic principles of what we would accept happening to us or for
us and we translate that to others. It is like the “invisible
hand” in economics. It is a self-motivated, dynamic group action and
reaction mechanism that is self-regulating. It is molded by our current
view of fairness, acceptability and so on.
Kreeft begins moving even further from logic by
stating on pg. 47 that atheists assert that “9 out of 10 people
through history have been wrong”. 90% of people – that is a
large, unverifiable and exaggerative statement. Kreeft asks “how is
it possible that human beings could believe in god throughout
history?” Well how is it possible that human beings could believe in
a flat earth, a universe that revolved around earth and on and on with
things we now know are not true? People throughout history believed it;
Christians throughout history believed it – until we proved
otherwise. So Kreeft puts his rational and beliefs behind popular opinion?
Also note that the early religions (and some modern) believed in multiple
gods (Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Etc.), which is contrary to the Christian
belief. So do Christians assert that “9 out of 10 people through
history have been wrong”?
On page 50, Kreeft is quoted for stating that
“God cannot make mistakes” and that “god did his part
perfectly”. Well if he cannot make mistakes and his part was perfect,
then why does Genesis 6: 6-7 tell us that god was disappointed with his
creation? It is his creation, perfect after all and not a mistake, and yet
it has made him sad, sounds like a mistake to me?
Gen. 6:6,7
"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And
the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the
earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
God created angels; Satan was one of them. Was
Satan perfect? And the fact that god is disappointed brings into question
omniscience! If god knows everything that is going to happen, why would he
be disappointed?
Also
on page 50, Kreeft is noted for saying that god did not create evil, which
is biblically contradictory: Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create
evil. I the Lord do all these things." Kreeft has now made
exaggerative and unverifiable assertions about people’s belief
throughout history and biblically contradictory statements. Now he goes
back to the common, flippant pardon of Christianity that pain and suffering
are present for a greater good. Strobel writes his words “more people
will be better and happier”. This certainly cannot be! Every person
has suffered to some extent and more over, a majority of the people
throughout history, and currently, are damned in the biblical sense. They
were not, and are not, followers and believers of Jesus and the bible tells
us that “many are called and few are chosen”,
“narrow is the way and few there be that enter in” and
so on. So for the benefit of the few, the suffering of the multitudes!
Wouldn’t mercy be the other way around?
And
why do these few need to be better, refined and made stronger? So that god
might have followers that love him, while the numerous suffer in hell for
eternity? Kreeft again shows a lack of logic in his statement “the
very worst thing that has ever happened” is the death of Jesus.
Billions of people have died and many have been far worse deaths than that
of Jesus. Millions of Jews, god’s chosen people, were burned and
slaughtered, people have been ravaged, tortured and mutilated, yet
Jesus’ death is the worse thing that has ever happened? Another
illogical statement is that our pain is “god’s way of defeating
the devil”. Kreeft moves on to the devil and how Satan is trying to
turn us against god. Too bad, Strobel – the skeptical journalist
– does not ask why is it that god waits until the end of the world
before binding Satan, or why Satan is allowed to deceive us and “rule
this world”! Satan is not needed for free will; the choice between
obeying and disobeying still resides. But instead god allows his archenemy
to deceive Adam and influence every person thereafter?
On
page 55, Kreeft uses another analogy of pain and suffering. This one is on
a personal note, it is about his daughter whom he watches try to thread a
needle in Brownie class. There she is trying to thread the needle and
piercing her finger as she goes. Eventually, she is able to thread the needle,
despite the bloodied finger, and she is proud of her achievement. So
through her pain she is able to learn. But was it too much for Kreeft to
hand a thimble to the girl? So that she might achieve without being
bloodied? Just as one might ask, is it too much to ask for people to
achieve and learn without pain – after all “all things are
possible with god”. Thus to say it is impossible for us to learn
without pain is undermining the omnipotence and omniscience of god. And to
say that the pain of all is justified by the benefit of those few that are
chosen by god is immoral.
Kreeft
then acknowledges the possibility of a world without pain and suffering but
gabbles on about how it would turn us into “spoiled brats” and
how ruined we would be if “we didn’t have any suffering at
all”. Someone should remind this Christian theologian about heaven,
where:
Revelation
21:4 “there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, neither
shall there be any more pain.”
Consequently
following Kreeft’s rationale, heaven will be filled with
“spoiled brats” and the painless environment will ruin all
saints. Kreeft then states, through Strobel’s writing on page 61,
“pain and suffering are frequently the means by which we become
motivated to surrender to god”. So pain is god’s rod to drive
us into submission, which sounds a little more like it. Rather than a tool
for greater purpose, it is a tool used to get what god wants. It influences
people in their “free will” choice to follow god. Come with me
or suffer, kind of like heaven and hell? Kreeft is actually talking about
his belief that pain brings people to god, though Strobel and I think
differently. On pg 38, Strobel writes that pain and suffering “is the
biggest obstacle for spiritual seekers”. Of course, Strobel
doesn’t bring this up during his interview but allows Kreeft to
continue on with his motivational hypothesis. Pain leads people,
particularly non-Christians, away from god not toward him. It leads to
questions of why and disbelief in how come. I questioned why it could
happen to the innocent, the Christian and so on, it drove me away from the
theory or belief in an omnipotent, omniscient god. Watching the innocent
suffer and perish, feeling the suffering yourself and wanting relief drives
you to anger and sadness. It drives you to ask why, and so far the answer
from Kreeft is that it is for a better, but unknown purpose –
possibly because it teaches us things, possibly because it drives people to
“surrender to god”. But why would a loving, merciful being that
is almighty and all-knowing need to motivate you to surrender? Why would he
hide in the distance and not come forward to present himself, other than to
use pain to motivate us to surrender? His hypothesis doesn’t rely on
evidence or reason, but on the hope of a greater good. It emphasizes the
benefit to Christians but neglects the lack of justification behind
creating the benefit at the expense of the multitudes. Is the benefit of
the few worth the suffering of all? And even more so, the few that do
benefit and follow god, was their pain justified? So they become better
people – to what end? God now has better people to worship him for
eternity in a place where there will be no evil, pain and so on? It all
comes down to what god wants? He chooses whom he has mercy on, whom he
condemns, who will be blind, deaf and dumb (Exodus 4:11: “The LORD
said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who
gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?”) – so
we suffer for his wishes? Of course, Kreeft would have us believe that this
is for a greater good? But I think his explanation of the greater good
falters badly and the hope of the greater good is just that – hope.
Chapter
6:
Jumping
ahead to the sixth chapter on hell, Strobel is now interviewing J.P.
Moreland. One of Moreland’s first statements through Strobel is that
“god hates hell and hates people going there”. If god hates
hell, then why create it? If he hates people going there, then why create them?
Moreland later talks about this, but first rightly says “evaluation
should be whether hell is morally just or morally right”. We know
that god created people so that he may have followers that worship him. So
that he may not be alone, he creates people and subjects them to the pain
and suffering in this world. One might make statements of moral justice in
that alone, but we are talking of hell. Returning to the book, on page 243
Moreland subverts the omniscience of god. He tells Strobel that “hell
was not part of the original creation. Hell was something god was forced to
make because people chose to rebel.” As though god didn’t know
that people were going to rebel in the first place! God knew before
Adam’s creation that Adam would sin. God knew of the impending curse
that he would lay down on mankind, and Satan’s rebellion with the
angels had already occurred before Adam’s creation. Where were Satan
and the demons going to reside for eternity? Moreland acts as though he
doesn’t know that god is omniscient and knew it all. God is
all-knowing, so how was he “forced to make” hell? God choose
knowingly to create hell and people predestined for it. We can now begin to
evaluate “whether hell is morally just or morally right”, but
we will continue on before doing so.
On
page 247, Moreland makes a lucid declaration about people that are going to
hell: they “choose not to care about the kinds of values that
will be present in heaven”. This is rubbish. Heaven’s values
are described in terms of peace and love. Numerous non-Christians care
deeply about peace and love. Just because one is not a Christian does not
mean that they don’t love their neighbor, or wish for peace. Moreland
continues with ridiculous comments by saying that non-Christians make
themselves “the center of the universe”. It is the exact
opposite! Most atheists believe that earth and it’s people are
a random occurrence, fleeting and just a piece of the cosmos. While the
Christian believes the entire universe was created for them! They are the
reason that god created the universe; they are the purpose in the world.
For centuries, it was Christians that held opposition to the fact that the
earth revolves around the sun and it is a small piece to a huge puzzle,
because they are “the center of the universe”.
He
also states that hell is not a physical place of fire and brimstone, but
isolation. It is a place we go to once we are judged. But there are people
in hell now according to the Bible, though god has yet to pass judgment on
all.
Luke 16:23 Luke 16:22-24 “In
hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with
Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, `Father Abraham, have pity on me
and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue,
because I am in agony in this fire.'”
So
hell IS a physical place where people already reside and there IS fire,
which the rich man hoped they would send water down to quench. Or is this
just colorful symbolism?
To
continue with Moreland’s coherent logic, he states that hell
“is not torture” then later tells Strobel that it is
“everlasting punishment” that “brings shame, anguish and
regret”. Why no, that doesn’t like torture to me! I sign up for
a good dose of shame, anguish and regret, particularly when it is everlasting,
whenever I can! I was waiting for him to tell Strobel that riches and glory
is not a reward.
Moreland
describes hell as separation and isolation. Rather than just annihilating
the people that will not be saved, Moreland says god does not do so because
people were not created “as a means to an end”. This is a
scapegoat and not a good one. People were created for a purpose – to
love and worship god. People are the means by which god, in the end, will
have followers in heaven – while unfortunately “having to
sentence” multitudes to “everlasting punishment”. He
mentions through Strobel that god “honors their freedom of
choice”. Let us look at that choice: if we believe and obey, we spend
eternity in riches and glory, a place with no more pain, sorrow or crying,
OR for those that do not believe – an “everlasting
punishment” of “shame” and “anguish”. Sounds
a little coercive, right? But Moreland opts out of answering why people are
not given a second change with “it would be coercive” –
as though streets of gold versus lakes of fire is not. Let’s continue
to look at that choice; Moreland and Strobel talk about how all we have to
do is believe, ask for forgiveness and we are saved. But the bible talks of
it a little differently:
Romans 9:
15
"I
will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I
have compassion."
16
It
does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
22
What
if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with
great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?
23
What
if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his
mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--
It is clear and simple… whom he prepared in
advance. God chooses, not us! It says that it does not depend on
man’s effort or desire but on God. So which is it, can we all be
saved or are some of us “prepared for destruction”? Too bad,
the ‘skeptic’ Strobel doesn’t ask any of these questions.
Does the bible contradict itself? Are we determined by our belief and
actions, or by god – predestined?
Romans
8:29:
For
those God foreknew he also predestined (and we are all foreknown)
Romans
8:29-31:
And those he predestined, he also called; those he
called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
It doesn’t say those that they that call
upon the lord are justified, it says the opposite: those he called are
justified.
Eph. 1:4 “he predestined us”
Eph. 1:10-12:
In him we were also chosen,
having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out
everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.
So he chose us, we have been predestined according
to the plan of his will. It is not our choosing, but his. But of course,
the Christians Strobel and Moreland say that whosoever calls on the name of
lord and believes will be saved but that is not always what the bible says:
Matthew
7:21:
"Not
everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven,
but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
Lamentations
3:8: “Even when I call out or cry for help, he shuts out my
prayer.”
Moreland
speaks of god as “the most generous, loving, wonderful, attractive
being in the cosmos”. Is creating people as “the objects of his
wrath” – loving? Is creating everything for himself –
generous and wonderful?
Proverbs 16:4:
"The Lord hath made all things for
himself."
Psalm 115:3
Our
God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.
Moreland
as dictated through Strobel: “He [god] isn’t trying to make it
difficult for people.” Well the bible says things a bit differently
on that as well:
Mathew
7:14:
“But small is the gate and narrow the road
that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
Luke 13:24:
"Make every effort to enter through the
narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be
able to.”
So the gate is narrow and few find it, and even
some of those that do will try to enter and will not be able to –
that sounds kind of hard, Mr. Moreland? What about on earth, it isn’t
difficult?
2 Tim.3:12:
"All
that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
From my experience, persecution is pretty
difficult. So returning to the original evaluation, hell, is it morally
just or morally right? Well with regard to heaven, Jesus, god’s own
son, is quoted in god’s word as saying:
Mathew 22:14:
"For
many are invited, but few are chosen."
So
after going through the distress of life, we are then placed into heaven or
hell as “those he predestined”. So the chosen few go to heaven,
while the multitudes go to hell, which is not torture – just an
everlasting punishment of shame and anguish – so that god may fulfill
his will. To me, this sounds a little unjust, a little immoral and a bit
wrong….
Back to Table of Contents….
EMAIL ME:
orcinus06@yahoo.com but not hate mail… broken
links/discussion=GOOD, “You’re going to hell”,etc=BAD
To the Entire Table Of Contents
|
|
|
